§Why CasetextPricing

GRANT ON DISCIPLINE

Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California’s Petition for Writ of Review

49 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

    535 U.S. 234 (2002)   Cited 944 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding invalid the challenged provision of the CPPA because it “cover[ed] materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller”

  2. New York v. Ferber

    458 U.S. 747 (1982)   Cited 1,995 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding child pornography is not subject to First Amendment protections

  3. United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.

    513 U.S. 64 (1994)   Cited 783 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "the age of the performers is the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct" under a child-pornography statute, the statute requires that the defendant have knowledge of the performer's age

  4. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n

    485 U.S. 439 (1988)   Cited 788 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an adherent was not entitled to challenge a third party's actions that offended his beliefs

  5. Osborne v. Ohio

    495 U.S. 103 (1990)   Cited 732 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "under the circumstances, nothing would be gained" by requiring adherence to a procedural rule for preserving an argument after the trial court "in no uncertain terms" had already rejected the argument once before

  6. People v. Farnam

    28 Cal.4th 107 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 1,113 times
    Finding no misconduct where prosecutor referred to the defendant during opening statement as monstrous, cold-blooded, and a predator

  7. Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance

    28 Cal.4th 1059 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 232 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding burden on insurer to prove exclusion where original policy is lost

  8. People v. Kurey

    88 Cal.App.4th 840 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 230 times
    In Kurey, the court limited its inquiry to considering whether, "upon review of the entire record, there is substantial evidence of solid value, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the trial court's decision."

  9. Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino

    11 Cal.4th 220 (Cal. 1995)   Cited 229 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Discussing statewide right to initiative

  10. In re Alva

    33 Cal.4th 254 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that lifetime registration for misdemeanor sexual offenders was not `punishment within the meaning of the cruel or unusual punishment clause'

  11. Section 2252A - Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography

    18 U.S.C. § 2252A   Cited 5,942 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Making it a crime to knowingly receive the child pornography itself

  12. Rule 9.20 - Duties of disbarred, resigned, or suspended attorneys

    Cal. R. 9.20   Cited 2,196 times

    (a) Disbarment, suspension, and resignation orders The Supreme Court may include in an order disbarring or suspending a licensee of the State Bar, or accepting his or her resignation, a direction that the licensee must, within such time limits as the Supreme Court may prescribe: (1) Notify all clients being represented in pending matters and any co-counsel of his or her disbarment, suspension, or resignation and his or her consequent disqualification to act as an attorney after the effective date

  13. Rule 9.10 - Authority of the State Bar Court

    Cal. R. 9.10   Cited 1,091 times

    (a)Conviction proceedings The State Bar Court exercises statutory powers under Business and Professions Code sections 6101 and 6102 with respect to the discipline of attorneys convicted of crimes. (See Bus. & Prof. Code § 6087.) For purposes of this rule, a judgment of conviction is deemed final when the availability of appeal has been exhausted and the time for filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on direct review of the judgment of conviction has elapsed and no petition

  14. Rule 9.13 - Review of State Bar Court decisions

    Cal. R. 9.13   Cited 17 times

    (a)Review of recommendation of disbarment or suspension A petition to the Supreme Court by a licensee to review a decision of the State Bar Court recommending his or her disbarment or suspension from practice must be served and filed within 60 days after a certified copy of the decision complained of is filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The State Bar may serve and file an answer to the petition within 15 days after filing of the petition. Within 5 days after filing of the answer, the petitioner

  15. Rule 9.16 - Grounds for review of State Bar Court decisions in the Supreme Court

    Cal. R. 9.16   Cited 7 times

    (a)Grounds The Supreme Court will order review of a decision of the State Bar Court recommending disbarment or suspension from practice when it appears: (1) Necessary to settle important questions of law; (2) The State Bar Court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction; (3) Petitioner did not receive a fair hearing; (4) The decision is not supported by the weight of the evidence; or (5) The recommended discipline is not appropriate in light of the record as a whole. (Subd (a) amended effective

  16. Rule 9.12 - Standard of review for State Bar Court Review Department

    Cal. R. 9.12   Cited 4 times

    In reviewing the decisions, orders, or rulings of a hearing judge under rule 301 of the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California or such other rule as may be adopted governing the review of any decisions, orders, or rulings by a hearing judge that fully disposes of an entire proceeding, the Review Department of the State Bar Court must independently review the record and may adopt findings, conclusions, and a decision or recommendation different from those of the hearing judge. Cal. R. Ct